messages_conversation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose ordering ('chronological') and completeness ('full'), which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, pagination beyond limit, or privacy — thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and capped by one scoping detail. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read operation with a fully-documented schema and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is the absence of any routing hint to sibling message tools, which annotations could have compensated for but do not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (contact, limit) are already well documented in the schema, including the flexible contact matching and the 'both sides' behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full conversation history with a specific contact') plus a scope detail ('chronological order'). This distinguishes it reasonably from messages_search (search) and messages_recent (recent), but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the use case (retrieve one contact's full thread) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as messages_search or messages_recent. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.